Working stiffs have a friend

Reader Input
-A +A
To Steve Cavolt (Reader Input, Dec. 22): Yes, the two-month renewal of payroll tax cuts passed by the House GOP on Dec. 22 with the support of Tom McClintock will be funded in part by higher lending fees for consumers who get mortgages guaranteed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You did not explain the reason behind these fees (you called them taxes) nor did you give us a hint as to why Tom would turn around and vote for them. As I understand it, Obama doesn’t like to do tax cuts without paying for them. In other words, he likes to keep his legislative actions deficit-neutral. If you spend, you must pay for it. Conversely, if you cut the government income somewhere, you must increase it somewhere else. The president originally said the only way to fund the payroll tax cut was a small rise in taxes for the millionaires. (Remember the super-rich pay less taxes percentage-wise than the middle class.) He said he would not budge from that position. Of course, when the House GOP said they owed Grover Norquist (a lobbyist) their allegiance and would not vote for any tax increase on the super-rich, Obama promptly caved. (was that a surprise)? Because our leader was still determined to not increase the deficit (tea party may applaud now), he allowed the increase of fees on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage loans. Well, at least those folks who could afford a new mortgage weren’t destitute — most likely many are in the middle class. But wouldn’t it have been more equitable to have the millionaires pay? Obama didn’t hold working class folks hostage; he didn’t demand the elite rich help pay for the payroll tax cut or it wouldn’t happen at all. That may have been a good political move since the House GOP would have been publicly embarrassed — they would have stopped a tax cut. I guess Obama really cares about the working stiffs retaining their payroll tax cut and the continued unemployment benefits for those barely squeaking by. Patricia Grenfell, Auburn